Cheung Yin Sun - Greatest Woman Gambler Ever

[Deech]

MC is correct, the second paragraph is a response from Rob. When I cut and pasted, the author portion identification (for the second paragraph) was not included. The last line is mine.

Sorry, for any confusion.

[Rob.Singer]

Originally Posted by Kim Lee
Rob Singer, since you have been making extraordinary claims for years, it is not my obligation to jump through hoops. But $114,600 in mutual escrow is acceptable. Let me know where and roughly when you want to meet.


For the mathematically challenged---the $114,600 is how much I could, if everything went very badly for two sessions of play, lose. I would have to pay you $114,600, or twice my session bankroll of $57,200. You following this? However, since my strategy plays dollars thru the $100 machines and I theoretically could be ahead $2499 just before hitting a $100 royal in each session, you would owe me $402,499 X 2, or $804,998. But I'll accept your escrow, from all that "capital" out there, of just $402,499 because whatever amount I win in one or two sessions, it will be more than gratifying to watch a phony like you and your "capital-heavy backers" go down in humiliating flames.

Wise up before you make any more uninformed post that get mickey wet.


This was the last "challenge" of terms (on another thread). The public can decide how the escrow should be handled.

THIS is the Kim Lee acceptance? When I saw the opening paragraph, I thought it was on! Then comes the second paragraph. Really? Let me join in with Alan and say I see 18 ho,ho,ho's in a row!

When God said brains you thought he said rain and ran for cover. The 1st paragraph was written by Kim Lee. The 2nd paragraph was written by your lover, Rob Singer.

In mickey's simplistic, one-sided world of bums, anyone can accept a bet while ignoring proper escrow amounts.

Here's a scenario mickey--similar to a problem you might have come across if you weren't stupid enuf to have dropped out of school:
Lee puts up a $100k escrow. Singer hits a $100 royal. Lee owes Singer $400k. Lee stiffs Singer $300k. Two weeks later, mickey's still trying to figure this out. Two months later, Lee disappears/is never heard from again.

I wonder if the dropout will ever get it.....

[mickeycrimm]

THIS is the Kim Lee acceptance? When I saw the opening paragraph, I thought it was on! Then comes the second paragraph. Really? Let me join in with Alan and say I see 18 ho,ho,ho's in a row!

When God said brains you thought he said rain and ran for cover. The 1st paragraph was written by Kim Lee. The 2nd paragraph was written by your lover, Rob Singer.

In mickey's simplistic, one-sided world of bums, anyone can accept a bet while ignoring proper escrow amounts.

Here's a scenario mickey--similar to a problem you might have come across if you weren't stupid enuf to have dropped out of school:
Lee puts up a $100k escrow. Singer hits a $100 royal. Lee owes Singer $400k. Lee stiffs Singer $300k. Two weeks later, mickey's still trying to figure this out. Two months later, Lee disappears/is never heard from again.

I wonder if the dropout will ever get it.....

He accepted Rob's basic challenge. The escrow could have been negotiated. But, noooooooooooo! Tap Dancing Rob pulled the "you don't have the right escrow amount!!! You don't have the right escrow amount!!! You have to put up escrow first!!!! You have to put up escrow first!!!!"

The amount of escrow is a different issue than who has to put up first. But anyways, you all see the bullshit you have to go through in a futile attempt to get a bet down with Rob. It just ain't gonna happen. He's got more routes than Greyhound Buslines.

If Rob is serious about this public challenge then he will place his money in escrow before making the challenge.

[slingshot]

MC is correct, the second paragraph is a response from Rob. When I cut and pasted, the author portion identification (for the second paragraph) was not included. The last line is mine.

Sorry, for any confusion.

Thanks for the clarification-it seemed like two separate challenges. After reading 4 times, I see it's a further explanation ow what COULD happen if Rob hit big. And I further see Rob accepted the original challenge. So I say play it by session until one says enough.

[regnis]

Novel idea here--they both put it in escrow together.

[MisterV]

This is getting silly.

Why not simplify it:

Agree to observe RS play VP using his own money for a predetermined amount of time; keep track of money in, money out.

If he's ahead at the end of the contest he wins; if behind, he loses.

Easy peasy.

[regnis]

V--this is like telling your clients that are involved in a divorce to come to some agreement on their own or spend 10's of thousands in legal fees and wind up with the same agreement after wasting several years of their lives. They aren't looking for the easy suggestions that we have presented here. it's all about the fight.

[regnis]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

[Rob.Singer]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

Don't you dare come up with anything laced with common sense! These clowns have an escape answer for that too. They claim my strategy is a "loser"--of course, because they want it to be and not because they expect it to be. So if I were to play 2 sessions....or 10 or even 50--they'd simply whine "but gee Rob, anybody including a monkey can win most sessions of "Martingale" video poker and win money overall IN THE SHORT TERM but play the long term and you're guaranteed to lose because you play 99 per cent games....but play 100.001 per cent games and we'll be afraid of you winning a whole lotta cash!"

These anonymous cowardly critics can keep saying these things because it's the only way they can cope.

[slingshot]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

Noone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.

[Alan Mendelson]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

Two questions:

1. Will Rob do this and accepting that his only "win" will be the money he wins on his own play?

2. Which critic or critics will observe and report on Rob's play?

[coach belly]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

The wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.

[Elaine M]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

The wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.

You would watch him play for free, wouldn’t you coach?

[coach belly]

You would watch him play for free, wouldn’t you coach?

I would pay to watch you play, Lola.

[Elaine M]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

The wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.

You would watch him play for free, wouldn’t you coach?

And preferably in private

[jbjb]

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

Noone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.

Because ANY STRATEGY, SYSTEM, METHOD OR ANY OTHER BULLSHIT you concoct, WILL NOT beat a negative EV game....PERIOD!!! END OF FUCKING STORY!! Get it through your pea brained head!!

Only STUPID IDIOTS fall for these systems scammers!

[Alan Mendelson]

Jbjb is the question "can Rob beat a -EV game" or is the question "can Rob win at a -EV game"?

There is a difference.

Now Rob admits he's playing a -EV game.

[slingshot]

A

And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.

So why do we need $$$.

Noone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.

Because ANY STRATEGY, SYSTEM, METHOD OR ANY OTHER BULLSHIT you concoct, WILL NOT beat a negative EV game....PERIOD!!! END OF FUCKING STORY!! Get it through your pea brained head!!

Only STUPID IDIOTS fall for these systems scammers!

Although I only played it once, I was able to see it has the most promise of winning. Period. I'm thru here with this final post. You guys fight it out. Oh, wait. I forgot to leave without profanity, name calling, or ....whatever. Oh, well.

[kewlJ]

Jbjb is the question "can Rob beat a -EV game" or is the question "can Rob win at a -EV game"?

There is a difference.

Alan THIS is flat out STUPID! Of course Rob or any idiot can record a short term, session win or win for the day. Anyone can and does do this. Roulette players, horse bettors....anyone.

What no =EV wagering player can do is win day after day (longterm) playing a -EV game or wager. And THAT is what Rob is claiming. A million dollars over 10 years....THAT is longterm winning and CAN NOT be accomplished playing a -EV game or wager. It just CAN NOT! This is proven math. No betting system, progressive or otherwise can change this. Nor can "stop limits". Nor can the funning little wording like "soft profits". Nor can only wagering when the machine telepaths to you that it is ready to pay off. It is ALL nonsense! It is all voodooism.

If Rob Singer is having profitable days at the casino it has nothing to do with this stupid progression system. The only way this guy is making money at the casino, are the days that end with him having a stomach full of jizz and an extra $20 bill in his pocket. THERE is you Rob Singer winning system.

[jbjb]

Jbjb is the question "can Rob beat a -EV game" or is the question "can Rob win at a -EV game"?

There is a difference.

Alan THIS is flat out STUPID! Of course Rob or any idiot can record a short term, session win or win for the day. Anyone can and does do this. Roulette players, horse bettors....anyone.

What no =EV wagering player can do is win day after day (longterm) playing a -EV game or wager. And THAT is what Rob is claiming. A million dollars over 10 years....THAT is longterm winning and CAN NOT be accomplished playing a -EV game or wager. It just CAN NOT! This is proven math. No betting system, progressive or otherwise can change this. Nor can "stop limits". Nor can the funning little wording like "soft profits". Nor can only wagering when the machine telepaths to you that it is ready to pay off. It is ALL nonsense! It is all voodooism.

If Rob Singer is having profitable days at the casino it has nothing to do with this stupid progression system. The only way this guy is making money at the casino, are the days that end with him having a stomach full of jizz and an extra $20 bill in his pocket. THERE is you Rob Singer winning system.

These crackheads couldn't win if I let them flip the deck over and pick their own cards. They're that fucking stupid!